Thursday, December 27, 2012

Anti-gun advocates are pushing hard in the heat of the moment to rush through legislation that violates the intent of the Second Amendment. In their zeal to take advantage of any crisis, they seek to consolidate ever more power in Washington and eliminate perhaps the most important check on Federal abuse in the Constitution -- that being private citizens retaining the power to abolish a government that becomes too tyrannical. The Federal Government was not formed to grant and revoke rights, it was formed to protect our God-Given rights.

"... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Second Amendment is, as are all of the standing amendments, a part of the Constitution. It can be revoked, but only by the Constitutional Amendment process. I don't see anybody moving in that direction. The movement is in the direction of what the Constitution, via the second amendment, specifically prohibits.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does have an introductory clause, but that clause does not change the meaning of the declarative portion of the wording, which is " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It doesn't just protect our right to keep them. It protects our right to carry (bear) them. And that right -- protected as a directive to the Federal Government as to what it specifically cannot do ... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do these people not understand?

in·fringe
/inˈfrinj/
Verb
1.Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)
2.Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

The first definition applies in that to actively break the Natural Law that gives us the right would be an infringement. But the second definition is the definition that most people think of ... to "act so as to limit or undermine". So the Federal Government cannot act so as to limit or undermine the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That's what it says.

It doesn't say it "shall not be infringed" "unless", or "until", or "as long as", or "but only if"...

It doesn't mention hunting. It doesn't mention sport shooting. It mentions security of a free state, though. That bit was apparently far more important.

If we want to address mass murders, let's address mass murderers. Let's also address the gun-free zones that enable them. Let's not break the Constitution by infringing on the right of millions of law abiding citizens.

Your job in Washington is an important one. It is not, primarily, to make laws. It is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.